Crazy or Sad? I report, You decide

Any news nerds remember Jeff Gannon?

For those who don't—he's a former White House correspondent from around 2003–05 for a new and not completely real news agency who gained a reputation among other correspondents for gently tossing softballs full of shill to George W during press conferences.

As people started looking into this new bald-domed man in the press corps, a few interesting facts about Jeff Gannon started to surface. One such fact being his real name was James Guckert. Jeff/James claims that the White House Secret Service was aware of his name alteration, and did not see it as a threat to presidential safety as lots of media types alter their family names for the sake of their professional careers. Barbara Walters, for example, would never have made it to national TV if she still went by Nosferatu Bunnyslayer.

It also came to light that the Jeff/James was gay. And that's fine too—there are lots of bald homos in the world (they keep the fancy hat industry afloat). But really, the more confusing point is why would J.J.'s still choose to run with the right-wing lockstep on social issues as he does. It seems something akin to a black guy from the south questioning the wisdom of The Voting Rights Act because of its possibility of shifting the balance of federal and state powers—thus placing his personal interests at bay during a critical historical juncture for the sake of the status quo. There weren't too many folks like that.

It's one thing to be gay and want limited government and a strong military, it's another to think that your lifestyle—one that you apparently feel at peace with—does, in fact, have the power to bring western civilization to an end.

But beyond the questionable credentials, the name changes, and the conflicting lifestyles, what got James finally booted from the White House press room was the sensational public uproar around the fact that he was a gay prostitute who sold his services on sites such as Hotmilitarystud.com (if any of you entrepreneurs out there were wondering, it's currently listed as being "reserved for sale").

It was kind of sad that someone who was not out of the closet was forced out in such a public and sudden fashion. Nowadays, Jeff/James, with more time than he may want on his hands, self-publishes books, and runs a political blog (which allows no commenting). The weird thing is, J.J. has (on his political, non-gay-escort site) gone on several anti-gay rants , including his latest exercise in surrealness: "Mike Rogers: Violent Femme: Conducts Homosexual Jihad Against Republicans; Refuses To Condemn Gay Toilet Culture" (with Mike Rogers being the gay blogger who publicizes the long and sorted history of closeted, but anti- gay republicans, including stories on Larry Craig long before his bathroom adventures became public).

The rant includes such gems as:

Rogers and his ilk are the epitome of hypocrisy. Christians love the sinner and hate the sin; the ungodly liberals of the Democratic Party love the sin and hate the sinner. Larry Craig did not invent the toilet culture for which he has been accused. Gays did. Not only did gays invent anonymous rendezvous – the practice is a significant part of the homosexual subculture.

Not being gay, I'm not sure exactly how "significant" these aspects of gay culture are (and are they of any kind of significance in gay female culture?). But being someone with access to a dictionary that has the word "hypocrisy" included in it, I can honestly say that, within the confides of the whole Craig saga, "the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess" is not on the side of ungoldy liberals.

J.J. has apparently officially (though perhaps not voluntarily) come out of the closet and is even a columnist for the loud and proud Washington Blade. This leads us to the conclusion that J.J. is a gay man who doesn't let that aspect of his life define him. Fine. But at the same time can he really see no problem attaching his name to such keepers as:

Gay activists making a federal case out of Larry Craig’s alleged misconduct are making a big mistake. Do they really want mainstream America to know about the pervasive and perverted toilet culture gays espouse, promote, enable, encourage, facilitate and celebrate? Do they want the public to know how many bathrooms in the U.S. Capitol and the congressional office buildings are listed in gay guides as places for men to have sex with each other?

None of the gays activists bleating about Larry Craig say that what he did was wrong – only that he was a Republican. That’s hypocrisy!

I don't know, it seems to me—and probably most people—hypocricy would be working to demonize and regulate lifestyle through the law of the land, while participating in the forbidden fruits you so wish to squash. I don't know, that just seems like that might be the bigger problem for gays, and the rest of us to worry about.

Learning to Write with O: The Bill O’Blues.

Bill O’Reilly continues his war on whipper-snappers and good writing in the latest installment of his weekly column Why I Fear Things that are Unfamiliar from my Childhood in a piece entitled “High School Musical Blues” [full text provided below for reference].

“High School Musical Blues” is another installation in his award-winning series of “blues” pieces, including such slices of opinion journalism as:

• “The Convention Blues” from August, 2004
• “San Francisco Blues” from November, 2005
  
• “The Left-Wing Blues” from January, 2006
  
• In his piece “Al and the Oscar” from this past January, Bill suggests various ideas for documentaries that Hollywood (arty-types, Jews, etc.) should be making because Bill—despite his popularity, access to production facilities, and the distribution/PR power of News Corp.—is apparently too lazy to produce himself. One of which was “The Kyoto Blues,” which O sells as “[a]n honest look at the Kyoto Protocol which, in order to blunt pollution, would require major economic changes in the USA, but would allow massive pollution to continue in China and India. Is Al Gore available to narrate?” Astounding!

But back to the High School Musical Blues—O’s in-depth analysis of how saccharine, teeny-bopper fare goes unlauded by pinko rags like Entertainment Weekly (whereas more patriotic journals of fair opinion manage to present a more leveled coverage of HSM2).

Let’s just go over the lead:

There is no doubt that some entertainment critics have glorified rap "artists" like Eminem, Snoop Dogg, and Ludacris. Twenty years ago, pro-drug, anti-woman, and pro-violence lyrics would not have been embraced by the mainstream media for fear of public backlash. But today, bring on perversity in the name of diversity. Anything goes.

We’ll assume the word “artists” is placed in “quotes” because “O” does not think these “musicians” should be “grouped” in the same category as all those time-honored, pro-establishment popular artists. Like Elvis. As it turns out, O has a big boner for Elvis, which he relates in a 2002 piece called “Long live the King” (see, because Elvis’ nickname was “The King”--get it?). Like many old people inching closer to the grave, and remembering things that weren't, O seems to forget that while Elvis was “non-threatening and totally acceptable to young people in the 1950s,” he was anything but acceptable to many of those young people’s parents.

Via PBS (emphasis added):

Presley has already appeared six times on national television, but it is his appearance on The Milton Berle Show on June 5, 1956, that triggers the first controversy of his career. Presley sings his latest single, "Hound Dog," with all the pelvis-shaking intensity his fans scream for. Television critics across the country slam the performance for its "appalling lack of musicality," for its "vulgarity" and "animalism." The Catholic Church takes up the criticism in its weekly organ in a piece headlined "Beware Elvis Presley." Concerns about juvenile delinquency and the changing moral values of the young find a new target in the popular singer.…

While a young Bill might have been titillated by a handsome young southern man gyrating his bountiful and jean-clad pelvis on national TV, surely many older folks in O’s community weren’t reacting with the same enthusiasm. Much like today’s youth are pumped up by Eminem’s murder-spree fantasies and Snoop’s pot-soaked misogyny, today’s younger generation does not see Em, Snoop, or Luda as “threatening” or “[un]acceptable,” while many of their parents certainly do. And that’s kinda the appeal. I will not defend wanton violence and anti-girl themes of today’s music (yes, I am against both murder and rape—you can quote me on that). I also do understand the use (if not the need) for anti-social fantasy. The same way I am against putting sexual thoughts and flesh-bound innuendo at the forefront of your existence—the kind of mentality enthroned in much of “The King”’s early royal work. Would the O of today feel the same as the Elvis of yore?

Moreover, these types of cultural dischords have been going on for a long time. O is only the latest to play up neophobic fears to make the argument that we are in the throws of a “culture war." the likes of which mankind has never seen before. The term “war” is frighteningly misused in this context. In a war, there are no rules. The only objective in a war is to win, by any means necessary. The Civil War was a culture war. What O and friends are talking about is a cultural discussion that has been going on in every society that has had a middle class since the beginning of time.

Further curiosity is O’s nostalgia for the pop sensibilities of “20 years ago.” Do you remember 1987? A simpler year. A better, more innocent time when a wise-cracking Alex P. Keaton had all of America in stitches and AIDS was the new Polio. And, according to Dr. O, Professor of Popular Culture Studies, there were no “pro-drug, anti-woman, and pro-violence lyrics … embraced by the mainstream media for fear of public backlash.” Before 1987, these themes, of course, were never explored by the mainstream media. Except for that whole multi-platinum Hair Metal scene (not to forget the controversies of early-’80s actual metal scene). I think the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Jimi Henderix—basically the whole musical landscape of the ’60s and ’70s—were known for talking about prohibited substances on occasion (Jefferson Starship made their way into 1978’s Lucas-banished and very mainstream Star Wars Holiday Special). Ice T and Slayer were waxing violent on subsidiaries of publicly-traded companies. Perhaps he meant 30 years ago?

Perhaps O’s strangest comment is the use of the phrase: “perversity in the name of diversity.” I’m not exactly sure what diversity has to do with High School Musical or naughty rap lyrics. Is he referring to racial diversity (which, I will go out on a limb and state: I am for racial diversity—O will have to answer for himself). I can suppose that he is referencing the tired defense that boring gangsta rap utilizes that diversity of the crowds counterbalances the values of the content. If this is the case, O should have made that more announced, otherwise people might think he’s simply referring to negros in music. But of course, it’s not just rap music, and certainly not just black folks, saying and doing controversial things. While “perversity” and “diversity” do rhyme (worthy of Snoop, if I do say so myself), their elected use seems like it might relate to something lesser in civil society. Sometimes, people should think what they're putting out into the media, ya know?

---

High School Musical Blues
By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, August 23, 2007

There is no doubt that some entertainment critics have glorified rap "artists" like Eminem, Snoop Dogg, and Ludacris. Twenty years ago, pro-drug, anti-woman, and pro-violence lyrics would not have been embraced by the mainstream media for fear of public backlash. But today, bring on perversity in the name of diversity. Anything goes.

The same thing can be said for these revolting torture movies. A number of critics believe they're just great—the more eye-gouging, the better. The director Eli Roth, whose sadistic films are beyond disturbing, is considered a genius in some quarters.

Thus, when wholesome movies like High School Musical and its sequel become big hits, there is cheering among many traditional Americans. But not among some critics.

Entertainment Weekly magazine said High School Musical 2 was "too simplistic." And writing in the Chicago Tribune, critic Maureen Ryan gently mocked the movie writing: "How strange and amazing that the most popular teen musical of our time features so little kissing. Honestly, High School Musical and its sequel make Grease look like Caligula."

So now I must break this to Ms. Ryan and Entertainment Weekly: These movies are not being viewed by high school kids—little children are watching them. "Simplistic" plays among 7-year-olds. Get a clue.

More than 17 million children and their parents watched the second installment of High School Musical, giving Disney an enormous money making machine. Even Caligula could figure this out: Many American parents are desperate for clean-cut entertainment for their kids. Kissing isn't an issue for most elementary school urchins; they just like singing and dancing minus the obscenities.

But that concept is unsettling among some liberal entertainment people. Richard Roeper, the film critic for the liberal Chicago Sun-Times, put out a column entitled "Disney Hit is No Victory for Right-Wing."

In said column, Mr. Roeper says that he doesn't believe critics would hammer High School Musical simply because it is wholesome. Roeper goes on to say that conservatives might distance themselves from the movie because it embraces "liberal" (his word) values like tolerance and interracial dating.

That's right, Richard, all those mean conservatives would never like anything tolerant, would they?

Here's what I believe, based upon more than thirty years of working in the media: Many critics are jaded and cynical. Most are extremely liberal. If the property is "edgy," anti-American, or over-the-top offensive, they will like it. If the writers of High School Musical had turned the dancing kids into flesh-eating zombies, the critics would have been wowed.

The sad truth is that if an entertainment project espouses traditional values, applauds the USA, or embraces religion, a good number of American critics will hoot at it, and demean those who find it worthy, sometimes even citing Caligula.

So here's my review of High School Musical. It makes little kids happy without encouraging stuff parents don't approve of, therefore it's a good show.

With apologies to decadent Roman emperors, that's the veritas.